A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco.

Sour words about sugar

The background is well-known: In the United States, more than two-thirds of the population is overweight, and half of them are obese. About 80 percent of those who are obese will have diabetes or metabolic disorders and will have shortened lives, according to the UCSF authors of the commentary, led by Robert Lustig, M.D. [Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology] And about 75 percent of U.S. health-care dollars are spent on diet-related diseases, the authors said.

Worldwide, the obese now greatly outnumber the undernourished, according to the World Health Organization. Obesity is a public health problem in most countries. And chronic diseases related to diet such as heart diseases, diabetes and some cancers — for the first time in human history — kill more people than infectious diseases, according to the United Nations.

Less known, and still debated, is sugar’s role in obesity and chronic disease pandemic. From an evolutionary perceptive, sugar in the form of fruit was available only a few months of the year, at harvest time, the UCSF researchers said. Similarly, honey was guarded by bees and therefore was a treat, not a dietary staple.

Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. “Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy,” the researchers write.

Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just “empty calories,” but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes.

Added sugar, more so than the fructose in fiber-rich fruit, hits the liver more directly and can cause more damage — in laboratory rodents, anyway. Some researchers, however, remained unconvinced of the evidence of sugar’s toxic effect on the human body at current consumption levels, as high as they are.

Economists to the rescue

Lustig, a medical doctor in UCSF’s Department of Pediatrics, compares added sugar to tobacco and alcohol (coincidentally made from sugar) in that it is addictive, toxic and has a negative impact on society, thus meeting established public health criteria for regulation. Lustig advocates a consumer tax on any product with added sugar.

Among Lustig’s more radical proposals are to ban the sale of sugary drinks to children under age 17 and to tighten zoning laws for the sale of sugary beverages and snacks around schools and in low-income areas plagued by obesity, analogous to alcoholism and alcohol regulation.

Economists, however, debate as to whether a consumer tax — such as a soda tax proposed in many U.S. states — is the most effective means of curbing sugar consumption. Economists at Iowa State University led by John Beghin suggest taxing the sweetener itself at the manufacturer level, not the end product containing sugar.

This concept, published last year in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, would give companies an incentive to add less sweetener to their products. After all, high-fructose corn syrup is ubiquitous in food in part because it is so cheap and serves as a convenient substitute for more high-quality ingredients, such as fresher vegetables in processed foods.

Some researchers argue that saturated fat, not sugar, is the root cause of obesity and chronic disease. Others argue that it is highly processed foods with simple carbohydrates. Still others argue that it is a lack of physical exercise. It could, of course, be a matter of all these issues.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In these cases, most parents feel that they have no option but to purchase store bought, processed formula.  This is concerning to many parents for multiple different reasons. Many know that the cans are lined with the endocrine disruptor BPA (bisphenoyl A), that there are genetically modified ingredients in many formulas, and that the cows providing the milk are fed GMO corn, unless the formula is organic. Others remember the melamine contamination of fomula in 2008 in China or even the infant deaths from Nestle formula in the 1970′s and wonder how safe formula really is.   Recently 2 babies in Missouri died from infections thought to have come from bacteria that may have contaminated their formula. For parents who simply feel strongly about providing their babies the highest quality food made from the highest quality ingredients, store bought formula is less than desirable.

Parents do have another option.  They can make their own fresh, non-processed formula for their babies.  Realize however that this is not a simple task, such as just adding an estimated amount of water to powder.  Making homemade formula requires the acquisition of the highest-quality ingredients, mixed with exact measurement, including every ingredient without fail. If you are not up to this, then I highly recommend you rather buy organic baby formula and spruce it up with a few supplements.

However, if you are up for the challenge, then I do believe that homemade formula (milk or meat based) made from the Weston A. Price recipe is the absolute best food you can give your baby, second to breast milk.

Here is a wonderful link, containing recipes and a video to help you learn how to make homemade formula for your precious baby.

I hope this information helps you feel more confident and secure in knowing that YOU are the best person to nourish your baby, even when you can not breastfeed.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Eggs are high in protein, rich in omega 3 fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E) and contain a range of vitamins and minerals including Folic acid, B12, Selenium, Zinc, Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium and Magnesium.  When eaten with the yolk loose, the yolk contains enzymes that help the body digest it.

(Being so rich in nutrition and easy to digest makes loose egg yolk one of the perfect first food for babies.)

The quality of the egg depends directly on the health of the chicken that laid it.  Thus chickens raised in factory farms, never seeing the light of day, in dirty and cramped conditions, produce eggs that are vastly inferior to those laid by stress-free chickens who spend their days freely roaming, pecking at the dirt and eating insects and worms.

Many people believe just by purchasing “organic” eggs that they are getting the best eggs available.  While organic eggs do contain far less toxins, are more nutritious, and are significantly less likely to contaminated with Salmonella than non-organic eggs, the organic label says nothing about how the chickens are raised.   Thus, the quality of the eggs from one organic farm can be quite different from those on another farm.

The Organic Egg Score Card can help you find the best and the worst organic eggs available.

Even Better than simply Organic Eggs are Pastured Eggs:

Pastured chicken eggs means that they are from  free roaming, insect and worm eating, compost, grass, and dirt pecking hens.

Comparing Pastured vs. Commercial Organic Eggs, Pastured Eggs Have:

• 5 times more Vitamin D

• 2/3 more Vitamin A

• 2 times more Omega-3 Fatty Acids

• 3 times more Vitamin E

• 7 times more Beta-carotene

If this is not enough convincing enough, here is some research comparing pastured eggs to factory farmed hens that further support pastured eggs as the most nutritious egg option:

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

“Until future studies document the safety of this drug, children with asthma or at risk for asthma should avoid the use of acetominophen” (Tylenol) – pulmonologist John T. McBride MD.

In a recent article, published in the online Pediatrics journal on Nov 7, 2011, written by pulmonologist John T. McBride MD, he describes multiple studies done in the past 10 + years that support the association between tylenol use and the development and severity of asthma.

“A growing number of studies have documented such a strong association between acetominophen exposure and asthma that it is possible that much of the dramatic increase in childhood asthma over the past 30 years has been related to the use of acetominophen.”

 “As a pediatric pulmonologist, I am entrusted with the care of many asthmatic children and, at some level, with the respiratory health of all children in my area.  Given this role, I must decide when and how to act on the possibility that acetominophen is detrimental to asthmatic children.  Considering currently available data, I now recommend that any child with asthma or a family history of asthma avoid using acetominophen.”

Dr. McBride goes to explain that “the metabolism of acetominophen provides a biologically plausibe explanation for causation: depletion in airway mucosal glutathione that could contribute to vulnerability to oxidant stress.”

2 hypotheses as to how acetominophen may contribute to the prevelence or the severity of asthma:

1. taking acetominophen increases airway inflammation contributing to the severity and frequency of symptoms
2. those exposed to acetominophen in utero or in the first year of life might be more likely to develop asthma later in childhood

The most powerful study that he describes is that of a huge multi-location study, (122 centers in 54 countries, with each site enrolling at least 1000 children.) In this study, they consistently found a dose dependent increase in prevalence and severity of asthma.  Furthermore, the “association between asthma and acetominophen was identified at almost all sites regardless of geography, culture, or stage of economic development.”

In this study, they estimated that if children no longer were exposed to acetominophen, there may be upwards of a 40% decrease in childhood asthma.

Other pediatric studies suggesting an increased risk of childhood asthma associated with acetominophen use have been reported from Ethiopia to New Zealand.  Many adult studies in the US and in England show similar results in adults as well.  A few even compared the effects of other analgesics and none found any association between asthma with aspirin or other non-steroidals, like ibuprofen.

“The possibility that a measure as simple as limiting acetominophen use might result in so great a decrease in the suffering of children throughout the world is both sobering and exciting.”

“What considerations can guide a clinician faced with the possibility that acetominophen exposure is detrimental to children with asthma when causation has not been incontrovertibly established? The ethical principle of nonmaleficence (“primum non nocere” [... First, do no harm]) can be helpful: in considering the likelihood of benefit and the risk of harm of any therapy, physicians should give particular weight to avoid harm.”

“In my opinion, the balance between the likely risks of benefits of acetominophen has shifted”

“At present … I need further studies not to prove that acetominophen is dangerous but, rather, to prove that it is safe.”

Personally, I think if we took this “first, do no harm” philosophy with all medications and vaccinations, the world would be a far better and healthier place.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

We joke that kids “get high” on candy, and often even “O.D.” on it.  But as jest is usually based on truth, sugar is addictive and this fact was recently supported by an article in the Bloomberg Report.

“We consistently found that the changes we were observing in the rats binging on sugar were like what we would see if the animals were addicted to drugs.”  The animals also showed withdrawal symptoms, including anxiety, shakes and tremors, when the effect of the sugar was blocked with a drug. The scientists, moreover, were able to determine changes in the levels of dopamine in the brain, similar to those seen in animals on addictive drugs.

While this article makes some powerful statements about sugar, it is misleading in that it also refers to fatty foods being addictive without suggesting research to support this statement, as all fatty foods referred to are exceptionally high in sugar and thus it is far more likely that fat contributes little to the addictive nature of these foods, but rather the addiction lies entirely upon the body’s response to sugar.

A 2007 French experiment suggests that SUGAR may be even MORE ADDICTIVE than COCAINE, as it showed that rats prefer water sweetened with saccharine or sugar to hits of cocaine — exactly the opposite of what existing dogma would have suggested.

If you think a little sugar is ok for your child, think again.  Would you ever approve of your child doing a little cocaine?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I say this is an unbelievable study because no study like this has ever been done before, certainly not of this magnitude, and because the results are quite interesting.  It is also “unbelievable” because I’m quite confident that mainstream media will not say a word of this study, keeping it “unbelievable” to most.

A few important thing to understand before looking at the results:

• This study just began in December of 2010 but is ongoing so that data may change
• Most participants were from the US, but many were also from the UK, Canada, Australia and other countries.  75% of responders answered in English, while 25% of the answered in German.
• The study is being done by survey and thus is dependent on the memory and reporting of the parent.
• So far, the majority of children in the study were breastfed longer than 6 months and most parents prefer natural or holistic care over allopathic (conventional) medicine.
• While the ages range from infancy to >19, there is currently much more information on children under 6 years old than on older children.  Consequently current results will show lower numbers of those illnesses, like autoimmune disorders, that don’t typically show up until children are older.   (If you click here, it will take you to the study where there are links that provide a breakdown of the ages studied for each disease.)
• Interesting to note:  the reason that 25% of responders gave as to why they did not vaccinate was because they had seen a vaccine reaction in a friend or family member.  Over 99% of the parents were happy with their decision not to vaccinate.

Comparing asthma, allergies and atopy (eczema), unvaccinated children have significantly lower rates of illness:

Unvaccinated kids have less ADD/ ADHD

Unvaccinated children were diagnosed with autism, but FAR less frequently than seen in the general population

Unvaccinated kids suffer less from otitis (ear infections) and sinusitis (sinus infections)

Autoimmune diseases (diabetes, thyroid disease, other) were found very infrequently in unvaccinated children

While there are certain risks to not vaccinating your child, this study certainly supports that there are great benefits to not vaccinating as well.

Thankfully the decision to vaccinate or not to vaccinate remains yours, and must continue to stay yours!

As this study is ongoing, if  your child is entirely unvaccinated, you are welcome to have your child become part of the study.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Babies are more sensitive to chemicals than are adults.  Furthermore, these chemicals can potentially have a greater impact on babies developing bodies.  Thus, it is critical to be aware of and to limit your baby’s exposure to toxic chemicals.  Car seats are one of those necessary baby products, which unfortunately often contain toxins.  Many contain polyvinylchloride (PVC), brominated flame retardants, and heavy metal allergens – chemicals found to cause endocrine, reproductive, and developmental problems in both animals and humans.

A recent study tested car seats for several of the most dangerous toxins. (Unfortunately, the study did not test for all chemicals or toxins.)

This 2011 study showed the child car safety seats with the MOST HAZARDOUS chemicals in each of the three categories include:

• Infant Seat: Graco Snugride 35 in Edgemont Red/Black & Graco SnugRide 30 in Asprey
• Convertible Seat: Britax Marathon 70in Jet Set & Britax Marathon in Platinum
• Booster Seat: Recaro Pro Booster in Blue Opal & Recaro ProSPORT Toddlerin Misty

By contrast, the best 2011 car seats with the LEAST of these hazardous chemicals included:

• Infant Seat: Chicco KeyFit 30 in Limonata, Graco Snugride 35 in Laguna Bay & Combi Shuttle 33 in Cranberry Noche
• Convertible Carseat: Graco Comfort Sport in Caleo, Graco MyRide 65 in Chandler and Streamer, Safety 1st OnSide Air in Clearwater, and Graco Nautilus Elite 3-in-1 in Gabe
• Booster Seat: Graco Turbo Booster in Anders

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

By James Chapman, Daily Mail

Dr Arthur Krigsman, a consultant paediatric gastroenterologist, has observed serious intestinal inflammation in 43 autistic children.

At a U.S. Congressional hearing on the safety of MMR last week, he said his patients had inexplicably deteriorated, losing language and other skills at around 12 to 18 months of age.

All the children had been referred to him because they also had unexplained digestive problems such as pain, constipation and diarrhea.

Tests revealed that 90 per cent had the same inflammatory bowel disease reported by Dr Wakefield in patients he examined at the Royal Free Hospital in London four years ago.

Dr Krigsman said last night: ‘Our findings, which are independent of Dr Wakefield’s, completely support his explanation and his observations of the abnormalities in the bowels of these children.

‘They mirror exactly what he has described.’ The doctor, an assistant professor at New York University, said he did not know whether the illnesses were linked to MMR.  But he now plans to examine biopsies taken from the children for evidence of infection with the measles virus.

Pathologists at Trinity College, Dublin, claimed earlier this month they had evidence from similar experiments on 75 children, identifying measles virus from the MMR vaccine in bowel tissue samples.

Though this is far from proof that the jab actually triggered autism or bowel disease, some experts saw it as significant.

Dr Krigsman said: ‘Our concern was to determine whether there was bowel inflammation in these autistic children. The answer was yes. Now the question is: “What is causing it?î.’ His findings will add to the confusion of millions of parents over whether to have their children inoculated with MMR.

According to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS), the take-up rate for the triple vaccine has fallen to ‘dangerously low levels’ in parts of the UK, prompting fears of a potential epidemic of measles, which in extreme cases can be fatal.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

While our exposure to radiation is trivial as compared to the devastation that the people of Japan are experiences and will continue to experience for generations to come, it is still important that we be aware of and attempt to reduce our radiation exposure as much as possible.

Steps you can take to reduce the effect of radiation on your body and on your children:

• Bathe after playing outside – while normally I encourage kids to get dirty and experience all the germs in their environment, washing radiation off of the body helps to reduce continual exposure.

• Avoid playing outside in the rain as rain may contain more concentrated radiation.

• Wash ALL fruits and vegetables, even organic. (I advise using a fruit and vegetable wash containing grapefruit seed extract.)  As much of our organic produce comes from California, and as California is the closest of the states to Japan (without any natural barriers like mountains to have absorbed much of the radiation,) our produce likely has a minute amount of radiation coating each and every piece.

• Take daily vitamin C to counteract free radicals in the environment.  Depending on age and size, I typically recommend anywhere from 250mg twice a day for babies to 1000mg or more twice a day for kids 6 years and up, increasing dose and frequency during acute illness, if nose bleeds, or with adrenal stressors.

• Ingest iodine daily. Since radioactive iodine binds to iodine receptors in the body, if your body is saturated with good iodine, the radioactive iodine will have no where to bind.  Unfortunately most people in the US, especially those in the midwest “goiter belt” (including Michigan) who don’t live near an ocean, have very low iodine intakes.  Since the tissue that requires the most iodine is the thyroid, the thyroid is at most risk for radioactive iodine uptake and thus consequent disease due to exposure to it.  Women and peri-pubertal girls are at highest risk due increased demand from their female organs – hence, iodine deficiency is extremely common in women with breast cancer.

Iodine Supplementation:  Iodoral and Lugol’s solution are the two supplements that I recommend. If you’re not ready to start iodine, then organic dulse is a good source of iodine that can be added to food (found in the Asian food section at Whole Foods.)

For adults, the average iodine intake of Japanese (previously the nation with the healthiest people) is 13mg/day, and thus this is a logical daily amount and the amount found in one 12.5mg Iodoral tablet.  Dr. David Brownstein M.D, iodine specialist and author of Iodine, Why We Need It and Why We Can’t Live Without It, recommends 6-50mg/day for adults depending on the individual’s situation.  Starting slow, with just 1/2 tablet (6.25mg), is the safest way to begin.

For children, Dr. Brownstein recommends supplementing iodine at 0.08mg/pound daily.

http://drdavidbrownstein.blogspot.com/2011/03/japan-radiation-update-5-question-and.html

(This converts to 1 drop of Lugols or 1/2 of a 12.5mg Iodoral for a child who is 80 lbs, or 1/2 drop of Lugol’s for a 40 lb child.   How to give 1/2 of a drop?  Put 1 drop in a cup of water.  Split the cup into 2 half cups.  Give your 40lb child 1/2 cup each day.  Lugol’s must always be added to water as it causes irritation to tissues if not diluted.)

Good hydration, daily ingestion of Celtic sea salt and vitamin C are helpful additions to a daily iodine regimen.  These help the body to excrete the bromine, fluorine, chlorine and heavy metals that the added iodine may trigger the body to release.

As with any supplement, there are risks and some people are far more sensitive than others.  While tolerated well by most, some people react poorly to iodine.  Please consult with your health care provider before starting any supplements either for yourself or for your children.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Back in 2006, there was significant research, documented by the FDA, which showed that the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) actually INCREASED the risk of cervical cancer in women who already had HPV infection before receiving the Gardisil vaccine.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf

There were two important concerns identified in this review of the Gardasil vaccine.

One (concern) was the potential for Gardasil to enhance disease among a subgroup of subjects who had evidence of persistent infection with vaccine-relevant HPV types at baseline.”

3 Different Studies Supported this Very Real Concern:

• One study showed an increase of 11.7% risk of cervical cancer from getting the Gardasil vaccine as compared to placebo.
• Another showed a 33.7% increased risk in those who received Gardisil after already having HPV.
• And the third study showed an even greater risk, almost a 45% increased risk, of developing cervical cancer in women who already had HPV infection as compared to placebo.

What is crazy is that most pediatricians really want to believe that our 10 – 14 year old teens are innocent and are telling the truth when they say that they have never had sex.  Unfortunately, kids lie and kids have sex. And, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease – affecting 26.8% of US females.   Thus, even when doctors become aware of this increased risk of cervical cancer from giving the Gardasil vaccine to people already infected with HPV, doctors will still be at high risk of giving the HPV vaccine to not-so-innocent sexually active teenagers who already had HPV.  And, consequently, they will significantly increase the teens’ risk of getting cervical cancer by upwards of almost 45%!

We took an oath when we became doctors to “DO NO HARM.”  Unless doctors test each and every girl for HPV before giving them the vaccine, they are causing potential harm by giving this vaccine.

If HPV was really so bad, wouldn’t OBGYNs be concerned about it in our teens?  You’d think so, but you would be wrong.  When most OB’s see a teen with cervical dysplasia (pre-cancerous changes on the cervix) from HPV, they usually just watch it and don’t treat it, as most NATURALLY resolve from the body’s own defenses fighting it off. The young healthy body  can usually fight off HPV on it’s own.  Not just teens clear HPV, but studies suggest that approximately 90% of all infections clear within 2 years. (J Pediatr. 1998;132:277, J Infect Dis. 1999;180:1415)

The second concern was with regards to the fact that Gardasil only protects against a few cancer causing HPV strains  - in fact, only 3% of those with HPV were found to have these vaccine “preventable” strains . 

Thus, there is a real chance that by getting vaccinating, patients may likely develop a false sense of security, thinking they are protected from cancer causing HPV, when really they are only protected from those few strains.

So, if the vaccine doesn’t make much difference to those given it at the “right” time, but rather significantly increases risk of harm to those given it at the “wrong” time, then it sure seems like the vaccine is acting much like a punishment for “wrong-doers” than any preventative for “right-doers.”

Our job as doctors is not to judge nor to punish, but rather to protect and heal.  We need to get back to doing our job, think for ourselves, and stop being moneymakers for big pharmaceutical companies, and stop acting as henchmen for those who have their own “moral” agenda.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites